Just looking for some clarity to your post...I don't fully understand where you are coming from - what part of this festival (precisely) is bothering you?

Yes, large groups of people can wreak havoc to an area (just look at how Rocklands has changed over the years). Another example of an area taking a 'hard hit' was the Oudtshoorn Main Crag during the Roc and Road competition.

With a new area close to Rocklands I imagine that this will dilute the concentration of climbers in the area and actually be good for the area (and it's economy).

The fundamental purpose of the meeting: To share a new area with everyone and have a bit of fun doing it (and create a happier community of climbers)!?

To the best of my knowledge Guy Holwill was the main player who developed this new area. For those who do not know: Guy has been a major player in moving climbing forward in South Africa since the early 90's - both personally and through the MCSA. I am quite sure that the necessary preventatives and ecological measures have been thought of and put in place.

IMO - Guy has been nothing but generous over the years putting in loads of time and money to open new areas and routes.

1) The area is NOT close to Rocklands.2) Guy was and is not the main "developer" of the area(but by organizing something of this nature it is implicitly so?).3) The egalitarian notion of sharing something with the group for the benefit, whatever it may entail, of everyone when it involves bouldering areas does not hold any water. Such benefits are completely insipid and unsustainable.

To get back to my question regarding the fundamental purpose of the event. I do not believe subjecting sensitive areas to scores of people running around trying to do the "best" problem in an attempt to exercise some sort of ephemeral fun is the way forward. In fact, I am of the opinion that it is the worst possible course of action.

I think there are two broad strategies that would make bouldering more sustainable:

1. Open and boulder at many different areas to the point of diluting the damage to each (outlined above)2. Realize that there is only so much bouldering available and manage the resource like a farmer manages his fields: using some while letting other fields lie fellow, in this case for a period of years I suspect.

Boulderers would much rather option 1 as this opens up choice and freedom, however in reality areas go in and out of fashion, and so the traffic will migrate accordingly, focusing on convenient and the quality areas. This means more damage to these areas.

Option 2 involves responsibility, patients and some kind of management structure to oversee the system. These are all hard to manage and communicate. But more than that it means that for years you may not be allowed access to a problem that you want to do, and you lack the self control not to go there. unlike other communities, Western Cape boulderers have proven over the last 2 years to be incapable of any of the above responsibilities though their access to Red hill etc and even attacking those trying to rescue official access to it.

The first step of implementing Option 2 would be identifying sensitive areas, or areas needing management for other reasons such as plant or animal activity. We might find that not all areas need to be managed, just the popular ones.

To my knowledge the Rock Subcom of the MCSA has been talking about a option 2 solution, but are currently focused on other matters.

But for sure Warren, we need to find some sort of resolution...Option 1 seems better for me...for obvious reasons.But perhaps it is a question of education of the climbing community as well.I mean what harm would there be in someone (us, SANPARKS, etc) taking climbers around to teach us the effect of our sometimes careless actions.

I think if more people understood why areas were being closed instead of just being told, then perhaps we'd be more accommodating to restricted access areas as well as far more conscious of our actions in future and take better care of our climbing areas.I'm sure the consequences are more clear to some than others, but that's how us humans are...sometimes we need to be shown instead of just told so as to understand something.

Instead of educating the poor plebeian portion of the "climbing community" on apt sensible practices aimed at minimizing impact on climbing areas, perhaps the pragmatic thing would be for the so called educated to not f@cking publish and promote newly developed areas at a whim.

Sharing new areas can be a good thing, but done indiscriminately, such as organizing a festival for example, will inevitably result in another Roadside, great but f@cked!

Geez dude, chiil out.Your bitching is not doing anything but pissing people off and making them ignore everything you say.

If you don't teach people WHY what they are doing is bad they will continue to do it...full stop.Any we're climbers...we want to share these things we find because we wan't others to have the smiles we had when we were there.

I know I sound like a freaking politician, but unless you see the bigger picture and are made aware of your actions, you're unlikely to have a significant enough brain fart to realise putting your pad down on top of a little bush for a while could have further reaching consequences.

To get back to my question regarding the fundamental purpose of the event. I do not believe subjecting sensitive areas to scores of people running around trying to do the "best" problem in an attempt to exercise some sort of ephemeral fun is the way forward. In fact, I am of the opinion that it is the worst possible course of action.

"No man, no problem".Joseph Stalin.

I think I understand. People = impact. No people then = no impact, right?But I think I know what Stalin meant - he does not include himself in the "No man, no problem" equation. He wants to be "the man" without having to deal with "problems"Do you want to be the man in this boulder field, who says "I have no men here and thus no problems" ?Well I do too. We can be there, together, with no men and no problems. You see the paradox?

"people" = problemsyou = peoplethus you = problems

But no! I hear you say. Not me! Not I! I am not like them! I am different! I am special! I love this place more! But you and I are just more of the same. People who live, using resources.

The fact of matter is that there is fundamental, yet subtle, difference in our departure points. Please correct me if I am wrong, you are of the opinion that a lack of knowledge regarding low-impact practices is the issue at hand and needs to be addressed through some educational process. I believe that indiscriminate promotion of new climbing areas for the sake of personal gain (promoting position in a social context,"Any we're climbers...we want to share these things we find because we wan't others to have the smiles we had when we were there." A point in case) is the fundamental issue.

It does not matter how rigorously any one boulderer conforms to low-impact protocols when you have hundreds of such individuals visiting a sensitive area. More people, regardless of whom they are, equals more impact.

When it comes to "events" like this one, the benefits will always be outweighed by the costs, significantly so, this is the bigger picture you should concern yourself with.

OK, you sound way less full of kak when you put it that way But still....it is going to happen, we're not going to be able to stop it, so we just have to try to minimise the impact.That can only efficiently be done by the people causing the "damage".Banning ppl from climbing a certain area is another option....but rules are meant to be broken and people will occasionally just break the ban. It is the nature of the human species.But to be honest...wtf is the point of keeping a place pristine if it is never visited by anyone to appreciate it? In doing so there WILL be impact on it, plain and simple.

"But still....it is going to happen, we're not going to be able to stop it, so we just have to try to minimise the impact."

What is going to happen? The event? Yes this is correct. But needn't have happened in the first place! Is a weekend of fun worth of f@cking up an area in the long run? In short, no it is absolutely not!

Pierre,

In terms of my views and sentiments regarding bouldering areas I am diametrically opposed to the organizers views and sentiments, thus I am different, maybe not special, but different. Why would one jeopardize the future of a climbing area if one possess a deeply seated affinity to such an area/s, there is a logical contradiction for you my Wittgensteinian friend?

If people are hearing about it now through the grapevine, don't you think it better to have some sort of organised access to it for an event, where they can be monitored (if you will).Why don't you go to the event and help show people how they are potentially f**king the place up...?

At least then it is controlled and most of the people participating will he pretty hard climbers (7b being the minimum entry grade and all), so they are likely to have a large influence on the rest of the community if it can be shown to them ....

Logic, care to put your real name next to your sentiments? i found its a great way to keep us civil & it brings a relational element along with the (often cold, hard) facts. let debate be rigorous & healthy.

btw, i'm sympathetic to your views, but why not get in contact with the organisers and hear what their strategy is to reduce impact + you can bring a few good ideas to the table.

Banning ppl from climbing a certain area is another option....but rules are meant to be broken and people will occasionally just break the ban. It is the nature of the human species.But to be honest...wtf is the point of keeping a place pristine if it is never visited by anyone to appreciate it? In doing so there WILL be impact on it, plain and simple.

Rules are most definitely not MADE to be broken and there is valid argument for the complete banning of public access to certain nature sanctuaries as has been in a lot of areas in Russia. The fact that people have an ability to climb rocks does not automatically entitle them to scale every piece rock on the planet, irrespective of land ownership or impact. To take a fundamentally consumerist approach to climbing would be a mistake. There needs to be a balance and if the balance is a big enough deal for those who are "responsible" (we all should be in a sense, but that's a separate issue) then they will merely go the route of Hueco Tanks and enforce supervised climbing only...bouldering kindergarten.

However, the festival could be used as a brilliant vehicle to educate people. It's a mistake to assume that all people grew up with the same appreciation and understanding of the value of maintaining an areas natural state. The more people you have who agree to tread light and leave as little trace as possible the better.

It would be fair to compare our situation to commercial fishing, and fish stocks: there are lots of fish and lots of mouths to feed so whats the problem? A flawed logic that will only have the fishermen suffer. Like the fishermen we could wait until we have depleted our stocks and the government steps in, or we could show some responsibility and impose a solution on ourselves. The difference here is bouldering doesn't make loads of jobs and survive poor families, but is a hobby for (generally) urbanized white people. This means we HAVE to manage it ourselves

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum